I don't support any bill that would allow doctors to lie to patients, no matter how remote the possibility. And I support efforts to make sure illegal immigrants aren't voting, no matter how remote the possibility.
A consistent position. How inconsistent of me.

Hopefully a Doctor's conscience and hypocratic oath will still trump a law that says there won't be a penalty for with-holding information or refusing a referall for medicine, or surgery.

Especially considering that the oath will have "grandfather" precedence, a Dr. who witholds a referral for an abortion to terminate a life-threatening pregnancy or refuses for the same reasons, to refer a woman to have the abortion of a child as a product of rape will still be very liable, susecptible, and likely successfully sued.

This law does prevent doctors from lying, but it does prevent them for being punished when they do. Voter ID laws do not add any additional punishment for unicorn votes, but they do make it harder for real people to cast them.

The majority of eligible voters don't vote, except in presidential elections, when the percentages are still pretty bad. People have a thousand excuses for not voting. If I believed that voter ID presented a significant barrier to voters, I would be opposed to them. But I don't believe the barriers are significant and courts have ruled in favor of my position. If there are individuals who think this will be an obstacle, let them come forward now and be given assistance in obtaining whatever is necessary to allow them to vote. But should they come forward the day of the election, or the day after, then their complaints would be no different than if they had simply failed to register. Or is that, too, too high a hill to climb?

The courts aren't always right. Separate but equal, two generations of idiots are enough, corporations are people.

That said, I'd prefer the least restrictive method of enforcement. Since there's no evidence outside of gotcha videos that there's some sort of mass conspiracy to register ineligible voters and no evidence that these non existent voters are swaying election results, why make it even harder? If people want to abdicate their right to vote, that's on them, but it behooves us to pay attention to people who are intentionally squelching marginal viewpoints at the ballot box. That's not healthy for liberty. There's no reason why someone eligible to vote shouldn't be able to register and vote the day OF the election. Why should it be easier to buy a gun than it is to vote for someone?

It would be healthier for liberty, in my opinion, to have an informed electorate. Shall we institute a literacy test? Of course, literacy tests were outlawed by the courts or was that one of their mistakes?
I'd like a system where everyone who votes would get $100. Talk about a stimulus. Then again, I'd be afraid of what more people voting would actually vote for.
Rather than you and I speculating as to what may or may not be healthier for liberty, which is fine for a forum such as this, when it comes to actual policy, the courts may be the best forum to decide.

And the Republicans chip away a another Freedom of the people as Kansas takes another step towards the Dark Ages. Next comes the public display of people bound in stockades in the center of town for punishment of moral church laws.

This is just another step backwards to where abortions will go underground to filthy back rooms with women dying from massive blood loss and insides ripped up by amateurs for money. Just like Prohibition, laws to control morals never work and more people die. When are people going to learn?

that would be a great option, for sure, and since it usually takes me one glance at a "new" user to realize it's the same ol' user with just a different name, I would be adding to my "ignore" list daily. Which would generate hits for the comment section. win-win for all.

He's just grumpy because of the cognitive dissonance of his anti liberty position with regard to voter ID laws. He's trying to force a false parallel with this lying to women act, but it's apples and oranges, and he knows it.

Right, because I "chose" to get raped as a virgin and "chose" to get pregnant from that... is that what you are saying? Of course it is, because I am sure that I somehow managed to bring it on myself. After all, being born with a vagina is enough of a reason for a man to rape me..

Don't forget that women also "choose" to have a baby with a trisomy disorder so severe that the baby had no chance of survival, but your doctor gets to choose how you'll mourn the loss. Because he's pro "life."

Rumor has it that some in the Church don't think very highly of old Sammy B, regardless of his abortion crusade. I guess his other hobby, persecuting the sick, old, poor and downtrodden is trumping any "browny" points he's getting from railroading women's reproductive rights. Browny might show up for church and find no bread in the bowl and no wine in the cup.

What does this legislation mean for health care providers and facilities that do decide to administer abortions and birth control? Where the hell is their legal protection? This all just means health insurance companies will drop birth control from coverage plans because of the heat from the GOP thugs in Topeka. Great planning, Browny. Way to legislate women's vaginas and confine the biggest decisions of their lives to the outskirts of society. If I were a freedom-loving woman, I'd leave this scary state. It's only going to get much, much worse.

I think, ultimately, whether Brownback signs it or not is irrelevant. You have to realize that all it will take is one court case being filed as a result of this law and this hog wash will collapse under the weight of the Supreme Court's scrutiny. The precedent not only treads on a woman's first amendement rights but sets a woman's life as "less" than the life of her unborn child... I highly doubt this is a slope the country is going to be willing to go sledding on with Kansans.

"The precedent not only treads on a woman's first amendement rights but sets a woman's life as "less" than the life of her unborn child..."
And yet, oddly, this idea that a woman's life is of less value than that of her unborn child is taking half of the country by storm.
The idea that women are chattel and only good for breeding is a concept that baked into the desert Abramaic religions for millenia. Yet true Christians don't feel that way (especially if they have the intelligence to ignore any Pauline influence).
Check out AUL and their cookie cutter legislation (that is oh-so-similar to ALEC's) and understand that these are men who know they have women by the short and curlies (figuratively and literally) and intend to keep it that way.

Oh, I agree. I suppose I still have some deeply ingrained altruistic faith in the American people, for better or worse. But, just because the idea may be storming the country (read: majority), doesn't mean they're right. Heck, if they all decided to leap off a bridge, I'd be safely grounded in my lawn chair having a good laugh. Especially given all the warnings I got from my parents about such dangerous band-wagoning. heh.